[oslc-core] Fw: [oslc-cm] foaf:Person vs sioc:User for dc:creator or oslc_cm:owner ?

[Dave]

What are we trying to accomplish with the dc:creator and owner fields?

Are we trying to solve a distributed identify problem or simply trying
to use the right model for givenName, familyName, emailAddress type
information? I believe we should do the latter in the 1st version of
the Core spec, but I agree that we may also need to do the former at
some point. At this point we have the notion of a user account, but no
notion of a "live person identifier" and I think we have to live with
that at least for v1.

For simple username information the FOAF fields are sufficient and I
believe a foaf:Person resource should be in the Core spec along with a
set of person properties. Actually, there are in the draft now.

In my opinion the Core spec should define a set of "core properties"
and the datatypes for each (e.g. foaf:Person for dc:creator), but that
individual specs should be free to override these on a case-by-case
basis.

- Dave



On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Steve K Speicher <sspeiche at us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Thought the core WG should weigh in on this one.   Olivier has a fair
> amount of experience with this and some good points to consider.
>
> Comments?
>
> Thanks,
> Steve Speicher | IBM Rational Software | (919) 254-0645
>
> ----- Forwarded by Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM on 03/05/2010 08:10 AM
> -----
>
> From:
> Olivier Berger <olivier.berger at it-sudparis.eu>
> To:
> "oslc-cm at open-services.net" <oslc-cm at open-services.net>
> Date:
> 03/05/2010 05:43 AM
> Subject:
> [oslc-cm] foaf:Person vs sioc:User for dc:creator or oslc_cm:owner ?
> Sent by:
> oslc-cm-bounces at open-services.net
>
>
>
> Hi.
>
> I've had a look at
> http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/CmResourceDefinitionsV2 and it
> seems that foaf:Person is preferred at the moment for describing
> reporters/owners of CRs.
>
> I'm not sure this is the best choice, and would propose to use sioc:User
> instead.
>
> When reading :
> "General agreement on foaf:Person is enough as there are not too many
> systems that have multiple accounts per user. Can be managed by having
> separate person instances (exception, instead of the rule)"
> I'm puzzled...
>
> sioc:User is already there to manage the situation of several accounts
> (sioc:Users) of the same physical person (foaf:Person).
>
> Why chose the least suitable one when there's one more flexible ? ;)
>
> Is this to avoid dependency on sioc and limit to foaf ?
>
> foaf:Person seems well suited when dealing with real physical persons,
> whereas sioc:User is more about accounts/aliases/nicks of potentially
> anonymous personalities of these real people.
>
> Also, when thinking about automation, I believe dc:creators couls be
> robots/apps, where sioc:User may be preferred to foaf:Persons too ;)
>
> In any case, sioc seems more actively maintained than foaf, IMHO, so it
> may be preferred maybe.
>
> Any comments ?
>
> Best regards,
>
> P.S.: I'm in the process of drafting a forge ontology :
> https://forge.projet-coclico.org/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/wp2/index.php/Forge_Ontology_Proposal
> which should be interoperable with OSLC-CM, hence my recent investigatiosn
> of sioc vs foaf.
> --
> Olivier BERGER <olivier.berger at it-sudparis.eu>
> http://www-public.it-sudparis.eu/~berger_o/ - OpenPGP-Id: 2048R/5819D7E8
> Ingénieur Recherche - Dept INF
> Institut TELECOM, SudParis (http://www.it-sudparis.eu/), Evry (France)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oslc-Cm mailing list
> Oslc-Cm at open-services.net
> http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-cm_open-services.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oslc-Core mailing list
> Oslc-Core at open-services.net
> http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net
>